Neale Richmond (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the House to debate this important Bill and I thank him for his remarks. The Bill presents a serious responsibility for Ireland as an actor on the world stage. As mentioned by some Senators, the context and relevance of this aspect of the Hague Convention will be quite clear to any of us who have watched the evening news in recent times. Images from conflict areas, such as Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq have shown the wilful destruction and desecration of numerous ancient and historic treasures. Centuries-old religious and cultural artefacts, structures and antiquities have been destroyed, stolen or damaged beyond recognition.

That the Second Protocol to the Hague Convention has been ratified by only 69 states so far is, in itself, very disappointing. It is, therefore, important that Ireland does not delay its own ratification process. While I fully support this Bill and have no desire to delay Ireland's ratification process unnecessarily, I have a few questions the Minister might clarify in his closing remarks. It will be an offence under section 2 to attack, steal, pillage, misappropriate or vandalise cultural property during an armed conflict in a state. Section 3 makes it an offence for an Irish citizen, member of the Defence Forces or person ordinarily resident in Ireland to do these things during an armed conflict outside the State.It also makes it an offence for an Irish citizen or a member of the Defence Forces to export or otherwise remove cultural property from an occupied territory.

As of January 2015, the Department of Justice and Equality estimated that approximately 50 Irish residents had travelled to Syria to fight for rebel forces in the civil war since 2011. According to media reports Garda and military intelligence are monitoring between 30 and 60 potential Islamist fighters in the State and Irish citizens fighting abroad in Syria and Iraq. Will those returning home from these areas of conflict be questioned about their activities abroad regarding the destruction of cultural property? What measures can be taken to regulate and monitor Irish citizens working in a private security capacity in conflict zones? It might be worth questioning these people about such activities.

The 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court constitutes a landmark treaty on individual responsibility regarding international crimes and contains important provision for crimes against cultural property. Two sections are relevant in Article 8 of the statute which gives a description of certain places and buildings that cannot be deliberately attacked unless they are made into military objectives.

In Ireland we have a relationship with religion that for many people is a central part of our culture. We have seen some of the worst consequences of this cultural identification with religion with hundreds of sectarian attacks on churches across this island by groups linked to paramilitary organisations. Will attacks on religious institutions by paramilitary groups waging attacks on this State be considered as crimes under the Bill? In the not too distant past we have seen paramilitary groups involved in the theft, purchase and sale of valuable cultural artefacts such as paintings from the Beit collection. While I acknowledge that at the time of their theft, the Beit collection was in private ownership, would this type of crime on collections held by the State be amenable to prosecution under the Bill?

Does the Minister have plans to expand the training for members of the Defence Forces such as that undertaken by the Austrian defence forces in this area? Could we follow the example of the Dutch defence forces, whose members being deployed abroad are issued with playing cards depicting local sites and items of cultural significance? It is a slightly more informal way of doing things, but it might be appropriate in this case.

I again thank the Minister for his time and repeat my strong welcome for the Bill. I hope he can address the points I have raised.